"In Serbia a lot of people hate me because they want to westernise, not understanding that the western world is bipolar, with very good things and very bad things. Since they don't have experience of the west, they even believe that western shit is pie."-Emir Kusturica

Since a chimp has no conscious mind that we know of, I guess we can look at these like photography... sometimes the camera catches a random moment that looks cool.

Having taken an anthropology class last fall that dealt with this subject, I have to seriously disagree with you. The history of "trying to make chimps do humanlike things" experiments may be mixed, but a lot of it was pretty mindblowing and successful. And compared to some of the other things chimps have done, abstract painting is a simple task.

And there may be a lot of anthropomorphism going on, but I have mixed feelings about it. I've always felt that it's unfair to reject something on anthropomorphic grounds when it may be an ability or tendency chimps (or other non-human animals) just have in common with humans. Isn't that bigotry... assuming that qualities that humans have (and something like the ability to paint and the capacity for creative thought) can't be found elsewhere?

i'll bet money there are monkeys that are more intelligent than some humans.

especially some humans who try painting.

do any of you remember an article in the nytimes a while back about an art show in soho that sold out and it was later revealed that a 4 yr old girl had done the paintings - kind of see a similarity between these two stories.

i think this goes back to that arguement in another thread ( the dead mice) - relating to the subjectivity of art and how important it is (in my opinion) to focus on the content rather than where and how and by whom it was created.

do any of you remember an article in the nytimes a while back about an art show in soho that sold out and it was later revealed that a 4 yr old girl had done the paintings - kind of see a similarity between these two stories.

i think this goes back to that arguement in another thread ( the dead mice) - relating to the subjectivity of art and how important it is (in my opinion) to focus on the content rather than where and how and by whom it was created.

I don't see a justification anywhere (especially in the stories you cited) for ignoring context. Maybe you could clarify.

do any of you remember an article in the nytimes a while back about an art show in soho that sold out and it was later revealed that a 4 yr old girl had done the paintings - kind of see a similarity between these two stories.

i think this goes back to that arguement in another thread ( the dead mice) - relating to the subjectivity of art and how important it is (in my opinion) to focus on the content rather than where and how and by whom it was created.

I don't see a justification anywhere (especially in the stories you cited) for ignoring context. Maybe you could clarify.

assuming your read my posts in the dead mice thread:

I wrote:many people change their positions on art and film based on their inherent judgements and/or knowledge of the creator. for instance: that filmmaker seems like a little brat or this artist is gay or that painter used human blood,on and on (or in this instance - the painter is a monkey).

the art should not be judged out of the immediate context of the image/story/statement. Any knowledge beyond the work itself doesn't and shouldn't change or discredit that work."______

Two Lane Black top discredits the painting of the monkey when it's contextualized, just as some people did for the young girl, just as some did for photograph of the mice finger puppets.

I'm saying it's irrelevent who the hell painted those images. It's very clear that there is a consistant style and form to those painting the monkey did. Choices were made. And by looking at three of them together, those choices follow a pattern. Obviously this monkey didn't just throw paint around nebulously.

People have a tendency to change opinion based on contextual variables. If one was told that those paintings were early works of Jackson Pollock they'd think it was brilliant, however upon finding out it's a monkey, they very well may discredit the work or change their opinion.

Just as people did with the dead mice. They focused more on the contextual morality of HOW it was created, i.e. did or didn't those mice die (for a lack of a better expression) "in the name of art".

cowboy, I respect your point of view, because the only thing I really took out of art history was the movement from aesthetic appreciation to authorial masturbation. The closer we got to modern art, the worse off it all seemed.

"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye